The Exclusionary Rule: The Miranda V. Arizona Court Case

Arguments are powerful in the United State on the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a tool that is used to defend the Fourth Amendment. Is an individual most powerful tool. The exclusionary rule helps ensure the unnecessary search and seizure. Another pros will be shifts the burden of proof away from the individual. There’s a term used that it is powerful when it comes to the exclusionary rule will be “innocent until proven guilty”. They are guilty when you are being

The Exclusionary Rule is defined as using evidence gathered which is in violation of the Constitution. Usually evidence is gathered illegally through seizure and which violates the Fourth Amendment. One of the key cases for this would be the Mapp V Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 1961 (Law, "Exclusionary Rule"). This case is landmark case for the exclusionary rule being used. Moreover, as for evidence being excluded from a trial I think that there are necessary measures as to what should be used and what shouldn’t be used in a case. If we determine good faith effort on the officer’s end we would be able to have the evidence obtained legally and have it be used as evidence and not have it dismissed. It is said that once any evidence is obtained during an

The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim....Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizures: 'The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair.'...In sum, the rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.12

“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim . . . . Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). They are saying is that the need for the rule is to deter illegal techniques that police use to obtain evidence, not to simply give more rights to the defendant. As Estreicher and Weick pointed out, “all of the cases since Wolf requiring the exclusion of illegal evidence have been base on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police action” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). So instead of looking at the exclusionary rule as the end-all-right that citizens are

Mapp complained that her Fourth Amendment rights were being violated because she was convicted based on evidence procured from an illegal warrantless search of her home. When the Ohio Supreme Court rejected her case, she brought it forth to the United States’ Supreme Court. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded Dollree Mapp’s conviction and extended the exclusionary rule to all state criminal prosecutions. “The exclusionary rule dictates that any evidence obtained by police or other government agents through an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is inadmissible in court during a criminal trial” (5). Before Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule was created due to Weeks v. United States, another Supreme Court case in 1914, when it was only obligatory for the federal courts to implement this rule; the state courts were not mandated to obey the exclusionary

On March 1963 a 22-year-old man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Az for kidnapping and raping an eighteen year old girl. At anytime from being interrogated was Miranda read his rights, and he confessed his crime. In the event that he had signed a confession paper that claimed that Miranda had been read his rights which was not true. The 5th amendment states, “... to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case”(Wikipedia). This illustrates how we the people are protected by the constitution, and have the right to not speak until an attorney is present. The Miranda v Arizona definitely ensures justice

As a result of the 1966 Miranda case the Supreme Court ruling has now obligated all law enforcement officials in my opinion to inform individuals of their rights that afforded to them the right to council. If once cannot afford council, then one must be appointed. These rights come straight from the Supreme Court rulings. All suspects must be read their Miranda rights once they have been retained for questioning. These famous cases begin with the Miranda v. Arizona following three other cases. All four cases were involving interrogations while in custody. All four cases the defendants were questioned by the police without their rights to councilor the prosecuting attorney being present and not one of their own. At no time was the defendant

On June 13, 1966, was the decision date for the Miranda case as to how there was a violation of the fifth from the protection of self-incrimination and sixth amendment of the right to have an attorney. In the past, this was a major case for the state of Arizona especially how the officers who arrested Miranda and interrogated him did not inform him of his rights as they should have been, which is mandatory to do now across the states. The case revealed the flaws in law enforcement, which was quickly altered as every officer is now required to tell the accused their amendments because they are the rights to every citizen in the United States of America, and are privileges that the government should never do away with. Every amendment created

“The United States Supreme Court currently enforces an exclusionary rule in state and federal criminal, proceedings as to four major types of violations: searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and ' sixth amendments, identification testimony obtained in violation of these amendments, and evidence obtained by methods so shocking that its use would violate the due process clause”(Oakst, 1970). Many

If I was a legal scholar that means I would be versed and skill in law with earned respect and recognition of my writing concerning legal topics. My thoughts on the exclusionary rule being constitutional right, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” also known as Miranda warnings are alive and well. Citizens have their rights to refuse to speak with police officers if they do not have a valid warrant. Police cannot use unlawfully attained evidence with an invalid warrant. There are good cops and bad cops, and the exclusionary rule is the best rule established to make cops be honest or to penalize them. This rule is an appropriate rule for police misconduct.

Miranda vs Arizona has been ensuring our justice for many years. It all started with a man named Ernesto Miranda who was arrested on March 13, 1963 on charges of kidnapping and rape. Miranda was interrogated for about two hours and signed a paper confessing the crime he had commit. However, Ernesto was not given the information of his 5th amendment right. It states, “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”. These words were not given to him and therefore Miranda’s charges were overruled in court due to violation of his rights. This then begs the question; do the Miranda rights ensure justice and preserve liberty?

In order to rightfully arrest a suspect in a crime or to appropriately try a criminal case in court, evidence must be gathered in order to prove the commission of a crime. There are legal standards which dictate how evidence is gathered and used in order to prove a person is guilty or convict him or her of an actual criminal offense. The Exclusionary Rule was established under constitutional law for basically two essential purposes. One reason was to prevent the unlawful gathering of evidence by law enforcement against a person. Secondly, the rule was also established so a person could not be compelled to incriminate themselves. This rule was initiated in order to protect guaranteed constitutional rights and to ensure that law enforcement did not overstep their authority in the process of collecting evidence. The rule also extends to ensure that a person does not participate in self-incrimination.

In reality, the exclusionary rule was created so that law enforcement agencies would update the search and seizure procedures to insure that a citizens rights are not being violated. By stating that the rule should no longer exist, then how would one handle matters when someone’s rights are being violated? When going back to the arrest rate statistics, we know that only small number of cases can claim the rule, even less succeeded at suppressing the evidence, with the evidence being dropped due to law enforcements deliberate negligence, not due to some “minor error” as claimed (Bradley,2012).

In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark case of Miranda against Arizona and stated that whenever the police arrest a person, it must be informed before questioning of right under the Fifth Amendment to not make statements that might incriminate her. Many people in the United States do not know about their Miranda rights and make the mistake of answering the questions that police ask. Sometimes answering their question is a good thing but sometimes is bad.